[OneWingedShark]

It's: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic".

So? It's used to justify not the protection of people but the abridgement of rights by allowing that which is not lawful; like I said the injured parties have recourse under *civil*[/common] law (and perhaps state law) as the 1st amendment prohibits Congress* from making speech-laws. Period.

This was wartime and the main point of the ruling was the establishment of the "clear and present danger" test.

I still don't care; the matter of 'wartime' or 'peacetime' is irreverent: the first amendment is not contingent upon the state of war.

If the theater were on fire, of course it would be wrong to NOT shout "fire"!

So we agree there.

* I hate the 'incorporation' of the first amendment because it applies some 'magic' such that the explicit term "Congress" suddenly means "legislative-body"... if that can happen, then what other 'magic' is allowed?

[muawiyah]

You'll need to take that issue up with the guys who wrote the 14th amendment. I didn't do that.

The Indiana Constitution itself has it's own Free Speech clauses ~